|
First off, I would like to thank Jules and Katie for creating the Linde. What a wonderful forum for (passionately yet civilly) communicating one’s ideas and deeply held convictions. I have found all the posts and comments truly engaging. If I may add my thoughts to the burqa thread; I am not so much interested in the debate about whether or not the burqa is ‘attractive’ or ‘feminine,’ as these are merely aesthetic or cultural reactions to what is (to the Western world) largely a foreign fashion. What I am concerned with is whether or not the burqa implies anything negative about the individual woman wearing it, or about women as a whole. To me, this aspect is far more intriguing and worthy of discussion. Fabric has no inherent moral value. The white poplin that can be made into a wedding gown can just as easily be shaped into the conical hats and costume of the Ku Klux Klan. The thread that forms the Star of David on the flag of Israel is identical to the thread that went into making the ‘badges of shame’ on the shirts of Jews imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps. So it is not the fabric or clothing itself, but what it implies about the wearer, that matters. What does the burqa say about the woman wearing it? It has been suggested that this ‘total veiling’ is meant to “secure environments where the chasteness and dignity of women may once again be sacrosanct” (Afgan Women under the Taliban, 2001), and, coming from a culture (our own) in which women are objectified, this sounds reasonable and even refreshing. But, in those places where the burqa has been mandated (officially or not), has the physical wearing of the burqa been the only requirement, or are there other, attendant repercussions? For example, consider that, under the Taliban’s rise to power in Afghanistan (during which time burqas were required), girls could not go to school past the age of eight, and up until that age they could only study the Qur’an. Women were not allowed outside their homes without a mahram (non-marriageable male escort), even to buy food or seek aid relief. Women were not allowed in general hospitals (even as patients), nor could they be examined by male physicians, a situation exacerbated by the fact that all women (including high-ranking female doctors, even neuro-surgeons) were forbidden employment and sent home. Segregation was evident (segregated seating on buses, for example); and women were forbidden from appearing on TV or radio, or from assembling in public gatherings. Women were beaten for even minor violations of their strict dress code. (Continued) | 
|
|
While the wearing of one, particular type of garb is neither here nor there, when coupled with the rest (see previous comment), the wearing of burqas no longer seems to me to be about protecting the dignity of women, but subjugating them. Again, if it were just the wearing of one particular style of clothing, I might have no objection; but I find the attendant mind-set disturbing. Are women being covered to protect and honor them, or to remove them entirely from society? According to one Taliban spokesperson, “the face of a woman is a source of corruption” (Taliban: Ascent to Power, 2000). Is this truly what is believed? Are women really such temptresses that only by rendering them shapeless, faceless non-entities can man control his sexual appetite? I find this hard to believe - and an incredible concession to (what may be some) man’s weakness. For example, I am pretty (if I do say so myself), but I would be hard pressed to find five men who found me beautiful, and any who thought me a ravishing siren. Consider the women in your own acquaintance - can you honestly say that any healthy male (of a reasonable hormone level) would find any one of them irresistible? If a lustful male removes all women from his sight, he is doing nothing to overcome his own disordered desires. And what does this say about his free will? It’s like Adam, determined to pick an apple off of the Tree himself, only to find they have all already been plucked and hidden away from him - there is no free will or choice in that. I recently served as jury foreperson in a criminal trial. What struck me was how we, as jurors, sat only feet away from the accused. Many times the defendant would look at us - look directly into our eyes - and, under our Constitution, that was his right, to see us face-to-face, in open court. For one second, just before reading the verdict, I fleetingly wished we jurors could wear masks or veils of some kind, to render us homogenous, non-distinct, non-recognizable beings. But then I immediately thought how wrong that would be. If we were non-entities, without faces, how terrifying that would be. How inhuman. How differently might we have related to each other, and how different might our deliberations have been, if we had known we would remain anonymous. Only by having faces, by being persons (just like the accused was a person), could we ever hope to treat him as such. In closing, it is not the actual fabric or style of clothing that I object to, but the demeaning mindset that often accompanies the mandated wearing of burqas. (This does not even touch upon the more recent international security issues surrounding burqas, and the inability to identify dangerous persons erroneously hiding behind the veil). Women have voices and ideas and contributions to society - and faces - and all must be acknowledged and respected in society. A world without any visible women - no compassionate nurse by a dying soldier’s beside, no inspiring teacher, no selfless aid worker, no affectionate foster mother or orphange volunteer, no talented and empathetic physician - is a world deprived of half its wonder, half its achievement, half its love. |
|
|
Great post, Teresa. Thanks! |
Jun 23 at 10:18 pm
Jules van Schaijik comments:
Sorry! This is not a real/substantial comment. I just had to test the commenting feature on this site.
Jun 23 at 10:34 pm
Jules van Schaijik replies:
One more test and (hopefully) I am done. Thanks for your patience.